439

Insolvency Resolution Process against a Corporate Debtor cannot be interdicted on the on fact that asset of Corporate Debtor is not sufficient to resolve the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor – Ashok Tiwari Vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. (DBIL) and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that the submission of counsel for the appellant is that the corporate debtor has only one asset which may not be sufficient to clear the debt of financial creditor nor sufficient for the resolution of insolvency does not commend us. Initiation of CIRP process is consequent to debt and default on the part of the corporate debtor who was corporate guarantor. The debt and default by the corporate debtor is writ large on the record. The corporate debtor having unable to pay its debt, insolvency resolution process against such corporate debtor cannot be interdicted on the submission that asset of the corporate debtor is not sufficient to resolve the insolvency of the corporate debtor. These are the issues which have to be addressed in the CIRP of the corporate debtor and cannot be ground to set aside an order of admission under Section 7.

Insolvency Resolution Process against a Corporate Debtor cannot be interdicted on the on fact that asset of Corporate Debtor is not sufficient to resolve the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor – Ashok Tiwari Vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. (DBIL) and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Once the initial appointment was under the order of the Court, the right of the party to appoint an arbitrator stood extinguished and forfeited. Thus, period of 30 days for appointment of an arbitrator after recusal of the sole arbitrator, would not be available for the purposes of calculating the period of limitation in order to assess when the limitation period commenced in terms of Article 137 of the Limitation Act – Tricolor Hotels Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Jain & Ors. – Delhi High Court

The limitation period of 3 years in terms of Article 137 of the Limitation Act commenced from the date when the arbitrator recused himself. Once the initial appointment was under the order of the Court, the right of the party to appoint an arbitrator stood extinguished and forfeited. Thus, period of 30 days for appointment of an arbitrator after recusal of the sole arbitrator, would not be available for the purposes of calculating the period of limitation in order to assess when the limitation period commenced in terms of Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

Once the initial appointment was under the order of the Court, the right of the party to appoint an arbitrator stood extinguished and forfeited. Thus, period of 30 days for appointment of an arbitrator after recusal of the sole arbitrator, would not be available for the purposes of calculating the period of limitation in order to assess when the limitation period commenced in terms of Article 137 of the Limitation Act – Tricolor Hotels Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Jain & Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

After approval of Resolution Plan, when benefits under an Order is realized the same should be applied in terms of Resolution Plan if it has kept provision for the contingencies, otherwise the benefits should be realized and applied, taking further Orders from Adjudicating Authority in case of difficulties – Pandurang Ramchandra Shinde Suspended Board of Director Vs. Vijendra Kumar Jain RP of Cyclo Transmissions Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

After approval of Resolution Plan, when benefits under an Order is realized the same should be applied in terms of Resolution Plan if it has kept provision for the contingencies, otherwise the benefits should be realized and applied, taking further Orders from Adjudicating Authority in case of difficulties – Pandurang Ramchandra Shinde Suspended Board of Director Vs. Vijendra Kumar Jain RP of Cyclo Transmissions Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top